Are people honestly spouting that kind of nonsense as fact? If circumcised penis' are so mutilated or whatever you guys feel, why are a majority of porn actors circumcised? There are no notable side effects regarding performance, and anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.

Because the majority of them are American, genius.

The fact that you're using things you see in porn as an argument is pretty fucking stupid and proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.

Good job you've exceeded Rick Santorum levels of ignorance by saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

Are people honestly spouting that kind of nonsense as fact? If circumcised penis' are so mutilated or whatever you guys feel, why are a majority of porn actors circumcised? There are no notable side effects regarding performance, and anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.

The fact that you're using things you see in porn as an argument is pretty fucking stupid and proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

Good job you've exceeded Rick Santorum levels of ignorance by saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

So you're going to tell me straight to my face that because I'm circumcised I will never be as good of a lover as someone who's uncircumcised? Or that I have some kind of handicap because of something so undetrimental as a piece of skin was removed from my body?

And how dare I use a 50 billion dollar industry as a reference for something. It's not like they're on the forefront of sexuality or anything.

You're no better if you're trying to argue something without having the experience of both parties, just like any biased bigot.

So you're going to tell me straight to my face that because I'm circumcised I will never be as good of a lover as someone who's uncircumcised?

Nobody said this.
The only thing that has been said is that removing the foreskin makes the penis less sensitive and you have less powerful orgasms. It has no effect on the woman or man you're sleeping with.

Nobody said this.
The only thing that has been said is that removing the foreskin makes the penis less sensitive and you have less powerful orgasms. It has no effect on the woman or man you're sleeping with.

Edited:

And the reason why American porn stars are circumcised is because they're American. Their parents didn't know they'd be in porn when they were born, so they snipped off their foreskin.

There isn't that big of a pool of uncircumcised men in the US.

I think that depends on the actual percentage of circumcised men in the U.S. The porn industry does hire the porn actors, and when most of those hired are circumcised it could be due to a customer preference for circumcised men. This point could be argued, however, given statistical data of a percentage of circumcised men.

I think that depends on the actual percentage of circumcised men in the U.S. The porn industry does hire the porn actors, and when most of those hired are circumcised it could be due to a customer preference for circumcised men. This point could be argued, however, given statistical data of a percentage of circumcised men.

There is not any reliable data because there is no dick box on the US census.

Estimates hover around ~80% of all men in the US are circumcised at birth, but the estimates vary wildly.

The reason circumcised porn stars perform better is because the foreskin is absolutely full of thousands of nerve-endings and is one big erogenous zone. It is also hypothesized that the glans (head) of a circumcised male becomes much less sensitive due to exposure and over-stimulation, killing many of the near-surface nerve endings. Ultimately, it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the male, and makes it more difficult for the male to please his partner (due to a decreased ability to gauge where he and his partner are in relation to orgasm due to a lack of sensation.) Even more: the foreskin, when erect, provides a cushioning layer atop the phallus which decreases chafing and discomfort, and allows for greater sensation.

I think that depends on the actual percentage of circumcised men in the U.S. The porn industry does hire the porn actors, and when most of those hired are circumcised it could be due to a customer preference for circumcised men. This point could be argued, however, given statistical data of a percentage of circumcised men.

The preference of the people viewing porn has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
So what if most American men prefer circumcised male actors?
That has nothing to do with the actor's own sexual pleasure.

The preference of the people viewing porn has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
So what if most American men prefer circumcised male actors?
That has nothing to do with the actor's own sexual pleasure.

If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?

Could that differ regionally? I feel like out here in the west it might not be as prevalent as in the east.

Edited:

If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?

No good estimates that I can find.

Edited above post:

The reason circumcised porn stars perform better is because the foreskin is absolutely full of thousands of nerve-endings and is one big erogenous zone. It is also hypothesized that the glans (head) of a circumcised male becomes much less sensitive due to exposure and over-stimulation, killing many of the near-surface nerve endings. Ultimately, it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the male, and makes it more difficult for the male to please his partner (due to a decreased ability to gauge where he and his partner are in relation to orgasm due to a lack of sensation.) Even more: the foreskin, when erect, provides a cushioning layer atop the phallus which decreases chafing and discomfort, and allows for greater sensation.

Porn starts last longer because their dick cannot feel as much. You enjoy mutilated genitals because they were mutilated from birth, before they were even finished developing. You've never experienced the other side of the equation. For a circumcised male, he has no idea what natural intercourse would feel like, and vice versa.

The point is that this is not a decision parents should be making for their children, especially not on religious or cultural grounds. One could even argue it's a method of indoctrination, permanently marking the child with the religion of the parents.

You can't give a newborn a coat of tattoos or breast implants. You shouldn't be able to chop the tip of their dick off.

What are you even trying to say with this post? You have horrifically broken English.

What do they "enjoy" about it? More importantly, who? Fuck it i'll just give multiple explanations.

The look? Penises are ugly as shit, they're meat sticks covered in veins with a bulb at the end, foreskin hides the ugliest part.
The feel? Less nerves = less feelings, it's a fact.

Would you enjoy a porn actor with a amputated leg or one with a whole leg? Obviously you'd prefer the natural one. Then why doesn't this hold true to circumcision in pornography? I didn't realize I would have to spell things out for you.

No good estimates that I can find.

Edited above post:

The reason circumcised porn stars perform better is because the foreskin is absolutely full of thousands of nerve-endings and is one big erogenous zone. It is also hypothesized that the glans (head) of a circumcised male becomes much less sensitive due to exposure and over-stimulation, killing many of the near-surface nerve endings. Ultimately, it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the male, and makes it more difficult for the male to please his partner (due to a decreased ability to gauge where he and his partner are in relation to orgasm due to a lack of sensation.) Even more: the foreskin, when erect, provides a cushioning layer atop the phallus which decreases chafing and discomfort, and allows for greater sensation.

Porn starts last longer because their dick cannot feel as much. You enjoy mutilated genitals because they were mutilated from birth, before they were even finished developing. You've never experienced the other side of the equation. For a circumcised male, he has no idea what natural intercourse would feel like, and vice versa.

The point is that this is not a decision parents should be making for their children, especially not on religious or cultural grounds. One could even argue it's a method of indoctrination, permanently marking the child with the religion of the parents.

You can't give a newborn a coat of tattoos or breast implants. You shouldn't be able to chop the tip of their dick off.

According to wikipedia:

In January 2007, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [. . .] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[47] A 2010 review reported that "despite conflicting results in some of the historical observational studies, most recent articles do not show evidence of adverse effects on sexual function."[58] A review which analysed the data from eight clinical trials concluded that the "evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function."

Would you enjoy a porn actor with a amputated leg or one with a whole leg? Obviously you'd prefer the natural one. Then why doesn't this hold true to circumcision in pornography? I didn't realize I would have to spell things out for you.

You're incredibly dense if you think people buy and enjoy porn because the male actors have cut dicks, that has nothing to do with it, at all.

You might as well be complaining about the color of the room they're in.

'You're incredibly dense if you think people buy and enjoy porn based on how the actors look. That has nothing to do with it, at all.'

Also props to atlascore for being the first to completely stray from the debate at hand and try to insult me on a personal level.

So you've given up on your terrible argument then?

Bringing up pornography was stupid in the first place, comparing amputated limbs to circumcision was even stupider.

No one gives a fuck what their dicks look like, if you're straight you'll be focusing on the girl, if you're gay you'll be focusing on the dude, either way their body (IE tits/ass) and face will be far more appealing than their genitals in that situation, or any situation involving nudity.

Bringing up pornography was stupid in the first place, comparing amputated limbs to circumcision was even stupider.

No one gives a fuck what their dicks look like, if you're straight you'll be focusing on the girl, if you're gay you'll be focusing on the dude, either way their body (IE tits/ass) and face will be far more appealing than their genitals in that situation, or any situation involving nudity.

Considering there are entire porn sites dedicated to certain types of dicks I would have to disagree

Arguing that circumcision of a baby is ok is almost like arguing that chopping off a baby's toe is ok. You'll go through life just fine without it, just like you'll be just fine without your foreskin. The problem is that you are removing something from their body without their consent which in any other case would be illegal. If you want to do it when you are older and can choose for yourself just like piercings or plastic surgery then more power to you.

I never saw what was so good about circumcision,it is something that needs to die out.
It should be the child's choice (which will be 100% no,because who want s to get skin cut from their penis for no reason).
A lot of people say that it is "just" a piece of skin.
Your eyelid is "just" a piece of skin too.

No, circumcision is wrong because it doesn't meet the medical requirement of informed consent on the part of the patient. Maybe I'm just left-wing like this, but decisions about a child's healthcare should probably be made by an independent 3rd party. The parents are either not well enough educated or too emotionally clouded to make a fair judgement.

In America this topic avoids proper debate because:
1. Penises are icky and talking about them turns you gay. The issue is taboo and as a result nobody wants to go get the facts.
2. It was literally a crackpot thing from the 50s when they thought jacking off would kill you, and like a lot of shit from the 50s ("Under god" guys, seriously?) they have trouble letting go.
3. People are not as smart on average, sometimes seeking to have their children to be in image of them. ("I had no problems, they'll be fine", again this is an issue of not being informed)

And yeah basically this being an entirely American phenomenon (beside africa, where it's being done for the 10% decrease in AIDS transmission, which is a genuinely worthwhile reduction because it can save 30,000 lives a year at current rates) gives away that the benefits are either moot or not universal.

P.s any chance of death from a nonessential medical procedure is too much of a chance, and circumcision does carry a risk of infection and therefore death.

The parent should be able to make an aesthetic choice regarding their child.

Suppose your child is born with an extra ear, or an extra toe, or finger? Suppose the doctor says, "No worries, 0% risk of health complications as a result of the extra ___." Should the parents not be allowed to remove the extra toe/finger/ear from their child at birth?

Before all of you who say, "It's different, foreskin isn't a deformity." Consider the reason parents remove the foreskin from their child - either for aesthetic or religious reasons, which means the motive for the removal is the same.

So long as a trained professional is performing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with it.

The parent should be able to make an aesthetic choice regarding their child.

Suppose your child is born with an extra ear, or an extra toe, or finger? Suppose the doctor says, "No worries, 0% risk of health complications as a result of the extra ___." Should the parents not be allowed to remove the extra toe/finger/ear from their child at birth?

Before all of you who say, "It's different, foreskin isn't a deformity." Consider the reason parents remove the foreskin from their child - either for aesthetic or religious reasons, which means the motive for the removal is the same.

So long as a trained professional is performing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with it.

In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?

The parent should be able to make an aesthetic choice regarding their child.

Suppose your child is born with an extra ear, or an extra toe, or finger? Suppose the doctor says, "No worries, 0% risk of health complications as a result of the extra ___." Should the parents not be allowed to remove the extra toe/finger/ear from their child at birth?

Before all of you who say, "It's different, foreskin isn't a deformity." Consider the reason parents remove the foreskin from their child - either for aesthetic or religious reasons, which means the motive for the removal is the same.

So long as a trained professional is performing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with it.

In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?

Obviously there are extremes to it, and you've named a few. I could tell you that I approve of parents piercing their kids ears. In this sense, the 'limits' to aesthetics seem to be based on "acceptable" cultural standards. I could ask you a similar question: are you again removing extra limbs, or surgically repairing things like cleft lips?

Its a thin line, I'll admit. But I think circumcision, because it is such a small deal, can be grouped with the former and away from the extremes.